Verify a decision
Every moderation decision on AVOID.NET is anchored to the Solana blockchain. You don't have to trust us — you can verify cryptographically that we committed to a verdict at a specific moment and have not rewritten it.
How verification works
- We commit. When a moderator accepts/rejects a submission, we serialize the decision into deterministic UTF-8 bytes (
payload_canonical_string), hash it with SHA-256, encode the digest as base58, and write it to Solana inside an SPL Memo v2 transaction. - We store the bytes. The exact bytes we hashed are stored alongside the decision in our database. Anyone can read them and recompute the hash in any language.
- You compare three values. Database hash, your independently-recomputed hash, and the hash inside the on-chain memo. If all three match, the decision is authentic and timestamped.
The on-chain memo format is
AVOID.NET|v1|h:<b58-sha256>|d:<id>|t:<iso>Find a signature on any investigation page's decision log, or run python -m src.verify_decision --signature <sig> for a CLI check.
Decision
review_approve · Dialect
- Sequence
- #5
- Score
- 69 → 69 (0)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 424151582
- Off-chain at
- 2026-06-04T02:17:37.242Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- EJnKAGE4koMyT6Xx7qw4coBv6gu2BBAkMBcmL9zJuTjd
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1363 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-04T02:17:37.046Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"d16f845e-8e68-4387-8519-a0206bac030c","new_score":69,"page_slug":"dialect","prev_score":69,"reason":"The reviewer assessed 35 claims and found 24 confirmed, 7 partially supported, 1 disputed, and 1 link-rot finding, yielding a disputed_pct of 8.6% — within the approve band. The single disputed claim (claim_findings[9]) is a factual inversion of Chris Osborn's X handles, a peripheral detail that does not affect the page's core assertions about Dialect's business, funding, or risk profile. The link-rot finding (claim_findings[16]) affects a secondary citation in the phishing-risk section; the underlying claim about Blinks phishing vectors remains supported by independent sources. The seven partially-supported findings involve minor date imprecision, a founding-year ambiguity already surfaced in the timeline, and a slight mischaracterization of an arXiv paper's scope — none of which constitute material misrepresentation. The high-priority coverage gap regarding the unresolved YC 'Acquired' flag is already acknowledged on the page and warrants expansion rather than revision. Reviewer confidence is 0.84.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":5,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}